I have no idea. The house has literally sat completely empty for well over a year. The tree cutting was the first activity I have ever seen there. I don't know if they plan on tearing the house down and rebuilding or what. I also have no idea if there's someone who actually plans to live there or if it's owned by an investor.

It's possible I overestimated, but it has to be at least over two dozen trees. And these are not small trees. There's of course smaller ones but others are easily over 40-50 feet.

50+ has to be weighed against the total volume of trees. If you have too many trees in a small space, none of them thrive. It can be valuable to actively thin the forest so that you have a smaller number of thriving trees rather than a larger number of struggling trees.

If someone planted 50+ trees that are a terrible fit for the lot, well that's a good reason to take them out too, hopefully with replacements.

Personally, I live on a large lot with hundreds of trees, and it would be easy to select 50 trees that would be reasonable to cut down, and you'd hardly notice. But the only large tree we cut down was a (non native) cottonwood planted near the house that had bifurcated and was likely to fall on the house in the foreseable future. When we thin the forest, it's mostly younger trees in thick growth that don't have room to grow well.

FWIW: In my area it is not uncommon for "off-grid" properties to cut down a number of trees around structures, as fire prevention. While 50 does sound like a lot, depending on the density and proximity to a house and the potential path of a fire, it may be reasonable. On the other hand, if a house had sat empty for a while, say in an estate sale type situation, it could be the estate trying to make a buck off some lumber while wood prices have been high.

Loggers pay good money for straight, quality trees.